Publishers and media organisations may have thought the summer silly season had begun in earnest recently when they received a lawyer's letter from Google attempting to assert control over journalists' use of its brand name. In it, Google informed them, by way of example, that it is fine to say: "I ran a Google search to check out that guy from the party", but not to say: "I googled that hottie".

However, Google's lawyers are trying to make a serious point. While Google must be delighted by its success as the No 1 search engine, it is worried that its trade mark is becoming generic by being used as shorthand to describe using a search engine or even searching for information on the internet. In its own words, it is seeking to avoid the "genericide" of its trademark. And there is reason to be concerned - if a brand name becomes generic it can be struck from the trademark register, as has happened in the past.

The action by Google seems to have been triggered by an entry in a leading American dictionary defining the verb "to google" as "to use the Google search engine to obtain information ... on the world wide web", and commentators suggesting Google has moved beyond being the name of a particular product to being a descriptor of an entire sector.

Some marks that have become synonymous with the products or services with which they are generally associated have retained trademark protection because they continue to exclusively identify the owner as the commercial origin of the product or service, for example, Hoover and Kleenex. However, others have lost the battle, and the trademark registration (and hence the value of the brand) has disappeared. For instance, no one considers that escalator, bikini or margarine - words that were once trademarks - are anything but the generic terms for the products themselves.

Once a word has entered popular culture it is not impossible to turn back the tide and regain ownership of the brand name, and businesses will often attempt to do so. The approach is usually the same as that used by Google: trying to educate those who influence use of language, such as publishers and the media, to use the name appropriately. Google has sought to adopt a light-hearted approach in order to get the media on its side, and a heavy-handed stance could backfire by making it unpopular. However, even if Google wanted to get heavy, its options are limited because it has no stick with which to beat "innocent" offenders such as the media and the public whose language is reflecting popular usage. Sending letters warning of the possibility of legal action could even cause brand owners themselves to be sued by the recipients, under so-called "groundless threats" provisions in UK intellectual property law.

Advertisements are another way of trying to educate people. Brand owners will often insist their mark appears in a certain way (hence Google's insistence that its name appears with a capital G), has an ® at the end of the mark, or the letters ™, to denote that it is a registered trademark or is being used in a trademark sense. Somewhere in the text there will also appear the words "Google is the registered trademark of ..." Journalists and advertisers, however, find the trademark acknowledgement a headache. For advertisers, words with symbols after them can look untidy. They will also try to tuck away the acknowledgment so that it does not detract from the design. Journalists simply tend to ignore them.

Whether Google's campaign will succeed remains to be seen, but it has certainly obtained publicity. This in itself may help to protect its name as a trademark, provided we all remember to use a capital G. Google's actions are a reminder that businesses cannot afford to see their names fall into common usage to the extent they become disassociated from the brand. Preventing the media from perpetrating what they see as misuse is essential, so expect to see more "guidance" on how popular brand names can be used in future and consider "googling that hottie" to be a thing of the past.